Comments on: Happy Trails, Joehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/
Development site for Bronx Banter Blog's upcoming look and feelTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:23:15 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.3By: gonzosoxhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150980
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:15:10 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150980At least for me, it wasn’t that Joe didn’t embrace anything beyond pitcher wins and RBI. That, for lack of a better word, is negligence. That’s not reprehesible. Lamentable, maybe, but not worthy of scorn. Every once in a while, he even had interesting insights, borne of experience or the insight and access that his player credentials provided, so ignorance of UZR or just OPS could have been excused. Hell, there’s something pathetically endearing about an announcer saying ‘“They (Red Sox) cannot beat them (Rays) by outscoring them.”

No, Joe was willfully ignorant, a living caricature of the sabr counter-revolution. He was an ostrich with his head in the sand from whose ass hung a neon ‘kick me’ sign. His open hostility, shown in the SF Weekly quote, is why FJM had to be.

McCarver may say 20 things 100 times more mind-bogglingly idiotic, but he doesn’t flaunt it like Joe did.

All said, though, it’s sad to see him go. He made one helluva Snidely Whiplash.

]]>By: Simonehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150979
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:28:37 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150979I won’t miss Morgan and his ego at all. I will miss Johnny Miller a little. However, as long as Buck is around (I can live with McCarver), the baseball and football announcing world will remain a hot mess.
]]>By: williamnyy23http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150978
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:30:01 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150978[27] Exactly…which makes the belittling of Morgan so unappealing.
]]>By: williamnyy23http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150977
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:28:55 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150977[25] Check out how Win Shares are calculated. There seem to be lots of subjective construction of the statistic. Many sabermetric measures rely on assumptions that are not “objective”. I am not sure how else to explain it. One of my biggest concerns about sabermetrics is so many who cite the metrics really have little understanding of even the most basic underlying assumptions (and I am not implying you are in the category, but I believe many people are).

The subject of Moneyball was basically that the A’s exploited market inefficiencies to level the playing field. That is a valuable lesson for anyone in a front office, but not really relevant for a color commentator describing what is happening on the field. I am pretty sure Joe Morgan understands the value of getting on base.

In [14] you wrote “Blocking off a large segment of the world …”, which I though was meant to describe Morgan. Sorry if I misunderstood.

We are going in circles here, so I am not sure how else to explain it, but knowing Win Shares doesn’t make you objective. If Morgan believes sacrifice flies determine the best hitter, he’s free to have that opinion, and you are free to disregard it. Just because he doesn’t agree with your or my opinions doesn’t make him willfully ignorant.

Finally, who said a color commentator’s job is tell us who is a better player? I know I don’t want them to do that. Strategy is definitely a part of the job, but so too is relaying what it is like to be on the field. Morgan was strong on the latter, and for that reason I could always tolerate his weaknesses. As for the comp to an investment bank, I really don’t think that’s the model a color man should be following. I read that quantitative analysis every day and would blow my brains out if baseball telecasts adopted the same tact.

I know I am probably coming off as a fan, but I am not. I am glad he was replaced. I do not, however, see a reason for all of the hatred expressed toward him.

]]>By: Rafhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150976
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:11:37 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150976I don’t mind if people don’t follow advanced metrics, what I mind are those who belittle my opinions because of those advanced metrics. Usually it’s because they don’t understand or can’t be bothered to understand. Some are willing to learn, other’s aren’t.
]]>By: Sports « 40ag dotcomhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150975
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:52:57 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150975[...] “it so much fun to play the righteous underdog.” (How do you think we got Die Hard?) [Bronx Banter] [...]
]]>By: RIYankhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150974
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:41:42 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150974I literally do not understand what is meant by calling some statistics “subjective”. Is it like the way Errors are subjective — that it’s just one person’s judgment of whether the play should have been made, and other equally competent observers would make a different judgment? I would more or less agree about stats like that. But what does that have to do with win shares?

Finally, you said Morgan was ignoring a large segment of the baseball world, not reality.

No, I didn’t. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Again, why does Joe Morgan have to know anything about Win Shares, WAR or any other subjective form of objective analysis? He shouldn’t have to…at least not anymore than you or I should have to know what it’s like to play the game at the major league level.

If someone’s job is to understand and explain which players are better and which players are worse, which plays are better to call and which are worse, and so on, then the reason he should know about objective analysis (again, I have no idea what a “subjective form of objective analysis” is), is that these provide evidence the ignoring of which is practically guaranteed to result in bad answers to the question you’re supposed to be answering.

Why should an investment banker pay any attention to quantitative analysis? Well, he will be very bad at his job if he doesn’t. Is this because quantitative analysis is “infallible”? Of course not. So infallibility is a red herring.

]]>By: NoamSanehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150973
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:38:59 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150973[17] I hear you Jay.
I still think Joe Morgan received more than his fair share of flak, but I know what you’re saying.

[18] I don’t fully agree that statistics are objective. I see your point, but disagree enough that I feel there is a substantive difference. I’m not a logician/philosopher enough to explain it succinctly. Sorry.

]]>By: chardsinchargehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150972
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:37:41 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150972I understand that many people will look fondly on Morgan’s broadcasting career as a triumph of baseball legend and lore over the more bland quantitative analysis that is always taking over the world of baseball. But that would be completely ignoring the fact that Joe Morgan, judging from several pieces of evidence, is either a complete idiot or an unapologetic liar. Furthermore, listening to him stumble through, and occasionally vomit on, the English language is something I was never ok with. So no matter how many fond memories he may bring up during his idiotic diatribes, I know that the likelihood of it all being false is much higher than the ramblings of any other broadcaster I can think of. I am eternally grateful that he is no longer working.
]]>By: williamnyy23http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150971
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:37:37 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150971[20] I can’t ever recall Morgan saying higher OBPs dont lead to more runs. What he may have said is that certain situations require a more aggressive approach. For example, with men in scoring position, it still might make more sense to take a walk, but Morgan would probably advocate going out of the zone to get those ribbies? Remember, however, Morgan was an immortal. From his perspective, no one else was more capable of knocking in those runs than he was. And you know what, most of the time, he would have been right. Like it or not, players do not enter the batter’s box with a subjective approach. They have very real biases that impact their decision making. As an immortal, I think Morgan was solid in bringing that out. Would I have preferred he also have some understanding of more scientific concepts? Sure. But then again, I can handle myself. What I can provide, however, is insight into what goes into the thought process of a player, especially a great one, when the game is on the line. That’s another side of the story worth telling.
]]>By: williamnyy23http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150970
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:32:07 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150970[17] Again, why does that matter? And to whom would he need to make that concession anyway? Like so many others, Morgan confused the topic with the author. I just don’t see why that is a crime. It’s hardly compelling evidence that he rejects objective reality. In fact, I’d file that one under he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[18] You are referencing a 2005 article though. At the time, a lot of people thought what Morgan did. If he still insisted the same things today, he’d be delusional. Instead, it seems more like he was misinformed, which again, isn’t a crime, especially on a subject that really wasn’t pertinent to his job.

I am all for looking at “objective statistics”, but that assumes the statistics are objective. Take WAR for example. There are two versions based on a different set of subjective criteria. Also included in both metrics are a series of components (fielding metrics, park factors, replacement value) that have subjective elements. In an ultimate case of irony, many defensive metrics are actually based on observed data. So, it comes down to a case of trusting your eyes or someone else’s.

Finally, you said Morgan was ignoring a large segment of the baseball world, not reality. Win Shares may (or may not) constitute a large component of reality, but it is a very small part of the current baseball landscape.

Again, why does Joe Morgan have to know anything about Win Shares, WAR or any other subjective form of objective analysis? He shouldn’t have to…at least not anymore than you or I should have to know what it’s like to play the game at the major league level. Both perspectives are valid, but neither so infallible that they require that the other take notice. I prefer to be more well rounded, but don’t think everyone else must. Being narrow minded might make a person less interesting, but it hardly makes them a villain.

]]>By: Jay Jaffehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150969
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:20:54 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150969Furthermore, it’s worth pointing out that as my Baseball Prospectus colleague Colin Wyers has gone to great lengths to show, UZR – to use an example cited above – is a particularly subjective model in terms of the ways that batted balls are classified. So much of sabermetrics is – we can use different formulas to obtain different estimates for different areas of the game, and the choice for the right tool may vary from person to person.

But to pick up on what I meant was that Morgan would attack more fundamentally proven facts about baseball, such as the one where high OBPs lead to higher run scoring. I don’t expect him or any other announcer to cite correlation figures, but that understanding is pretty damn basic, and should be no more up for argument than the discussion of whether or not the earth is round.

]]>By: RIYankhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150967
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:11:55 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150967If Morgan’s reason for refusing to read a book were: he doesn’t like statistics… that would be one thing. I think maybe you didn’t look carefully at the context. The book he’s talking about is Moneyball. He won’t read it because it’s a book about a computer, with computer numbers. On another occasion he said it was written by Billy Beane. In fact, on two occasions — on the first occasion he was corrected, but then he said it again. This isn’t a matter of not being interested in statistics. It’s deliberate, willful ignorance.

I just cannot understand the attitude that’s displayed by the question, “who has cornered the market on objective reality?” What is that even supposed to mean? I don’t think I really have to explain to either of you (Noam, William) why it’s important to look at quantified records and well-defined measures rather than just stick with “I know what my eyes tell me.” Since I’m certain you don’t mean that, I can’t for the life of me figure out what you mean by asking about whether statistics are objective.
Also, I hope you understand that the fact that some large segment of the baseball pundit community pays no attention to, say, win shares, is not a good reason to think that by ignoring win shares they aren’t ignoring a large segment of reality. That inference would just be absurd.

]]>By: Jay Jaffehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150966
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:10:07 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150966[6] I don’t purport to think that sabermetrics is equal to objective reality. What I meant pertained to the fact that Morgan couldn’t even concede he was wrong about certain basic facts, starting with the one where Billy Beane DIDN’T write Moneyball.
]]>By: NoamSanehttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150965
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:10:16 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150965[13] You’re probably right Raf, I guess I just don’t read those folks, and when I’m listening to broadcasts, I usually try to filter out the old school BA/RBI talk. I just don’t pay attention (as much as possible anyway). It’s kind of like religion: I’ve got my beliefs and I respect others’ beliefs as valuable to them. When they talk in their religious terms, I have a filter in my brain that attempts to morph what I hear into my terms, so it will make more sense to me. Neither of the two parties can be sure who’s correct…

Which leads me to:
[15] Again I’m going to agree with William. Where is this objective reality of which we speak? Who has cornered the market on objectivity? Remember, scientists still call something that they feel is proven a *theory*. I feel that that shows proper humility in a seemingly infinitely complex universe.

]]>By: williamnyy23http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150964
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:42:05 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150964[13] Some of them definitely can be, but I don’t think Morgan was one.

[14] Why is that offensive? There are lots of books I wont read because they are about topics in which I have little interest. If I was not inclined toward statistics, I wouldn’t read such books either.

Besides, Morgan really isn’t blocking off a large segment of the baseball world. Sabermetrics still occupies a relatively small space. Morgan is more mainstream than his critics.

Again, what are the objective realities Morgan should accept? Who defines them? And, are they really objective? It’s grossly unfair to say Morgan stood for a kind of “know nothingness” just because he didn’t know the things you wanted him to.

I’m with Jay, and with Emma. I don’t hate Morgan. But I think Emma put it well. The idea that you would just refuse to read something because it was a book about a computer that gives computer numbers, I find that not just wrong but offensive. Blocking off a large segment of the world (as Jay says, hostile to objective reality) because it doesn’t fit comfortably into the story you tell yourself and your audience about baseball, that’s just bad.

As I said in [2], he (and Miller) have redeeming qualities, no doubt about it, and sure, it’s natural to get defensive when you’re the centerpiece of a certain brand of criticism. But Morgan stood for a kind of know-nothingness that offends me deep, and I’m glad to see him go.

]]>By: Rafhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150962
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:31:05 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150962[6,8] Don’t kid yourself, the “non stats” guys are just as overbearing, overconfident and arrogant.
]]>By: The Mick536http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/11/09/happy-trails-joe/#comment-150961
Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:51:17 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=44126#comment-150961[3] Me, too. I also want more baseball lore, not just tales tied to the teams the announcers have played for or announced for. I liked the old WS teams where the national broadcasts had a local guy from each team. Too many players talking and not enough baseball story tellers. And, can we ease up on the over analysis, please.

And, while I be at it, I have to listen to REMDog. That be torture. Don is great, though.